Threads seem to die when ever I want people to reply to me…
- ahm thinkin’ ahm thinkin’…
The 10 day or so gap is probably also spent on preliminary shopping.
Had a think about this Xunzian, this may just have been the church being practical: No point telling people that their little baby that just died so soon after its birth had a soul yet. Perhaps the 40-80 day gap was to give the infants a little leeway for survival.
That’s a bunch of shit! 
The soul doesn’t “enter” the body, the body generates the soul within itself.
Now - you know that, and maybe on drunker, less hopeful days, even I know that. But the church definitely doesn’t - God’s the one with the soul bag.
Even dogma has to throw the dog a bone upon occaision. Can’t depress the punters.
The way I read it, it was 40 days after conception.
And I’m guessing the number 40 was chosen just because . . . well, after 40 days the woman is definately late.
But perhaps I misread the articles.
I don’t suppose anyone thought to ask how these numbers were arrived at, other than pulling them out of thin air… Is there the remotest possibility that there was any explanation behind these pronouncements?
My understanding of it was that you need human form in order to have a human soul. And, according to the thought of the day, that was how long it took to develop a human form.
I’ll double check on that one. But I don’t have my lit handy.
Would they know about conception in those days…? Or am I just assuming everyone not born this century was thick…?
Xunzian,
That makes sense - sort of. Interesting how convenient it makes male first and foremost in the soul business. 
Tab,
There is a small chance you have it backwards. Past centuries had greater sensitivity to human issues even if their explanations failed to register scientifically. It just may be that it is this century where we deny humaness and replace it with bot programming. So who is being thick here? 
Yeah, they knew about the corrolation between sex and pregnancy, and when the woman stopped getting her period, she was preggers.
As for how developed the the foetus was and their knowledge . . . I’m not really sure. The only physiology Aquinas would have had access too would have been Galen, so from his perspective humans were just sacks of blood and bones.
However, given the violence of the time, I am sure that more than a few pregnant women were gutted, so they would have had some idea as to in uetero development. Butchers would have been knowledgable on this subject as well.
Incidentally, the whole ‘life begins at conception’ thing was really a mistake from the early days of the microscope.
Since that is what they thought they saw in a sperm. Since it has human form, well, it must have a human soul.
Don’t pretend that they were more humane and ethical in the ancient times unless you have some good proof.
Xunzian, you make me learn. You art righteous.
Hi Tab,
Any discussion about what is translated as „soul“ in the Bible must take into account that the word is translated differently according to the context.
נפשׁ (nephesh)
(From נפשׁ [nâphash] meaning to breathe) properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental). The word is translated as living soul, life, living creature, persons, mind, lust or heart in the Bible.
Your question, whilst being a trap badly disguised, does make one ask what is in the mind of most people when they are talking about their “soul†or when they reject the idea. The birth of a human being has a moment of suspense after the pains of birth, and is when the first breath is forced. This is the begin of life outside of the womb and has probably been the source of the biblical metaphor for the soul.
However, if the soul is not an organ, which seems to be quite clear, then it is the figurative description of the centre of human life, which induces health or sickness, happiness or sadness. It is the inhaling inner self or the inner voice that tries to find direction.
Curiously, the word for spirit, רוּח (rûach) is from a root meaning to blow, and means to breathe; or to smell or (by implication perceive (figuratively to anticipate, enjoy); wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions).
Although only “a breath away†from nephesh, rûach symbolises the expression of life or feelings by exhalation, and both together symbolise prayer. Inhalation and exhalation.
Shalom
I set my mousetrap, and came back to find a bear clamped between its paltry jaws.
My prayer for us all - “May our inadvertant bears all be as benevolent as Bob.”
Nice reply. I perhaps will post something of a more sober note when people stop asking me questions about sex on a different thread far, far away.
jon.
Dan~
Don’t read the gloss, read the statement. I didn’t say they were more humane or ethical, I said they were more sensitive to humaness. They were no more humane than we are, but it looks historically as if they at least knew the difference. As for ethical, it is tied to the cultural mileau. Only now do we reduce humanity to chemical molecules. That was my point, and I’m sure that Tab understood it as such.
Gee Tab,
Are you having fun yet? 
As opposed to having spirits entering us and possessing us?
Tja, women are more irrational because their skin is pourous. It lets Dionysus in more easily.
And don’t get me started on miasma.
.